Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[Gindler]

I understand the "well you can just use someone who doesn't get infinited and blah blah blah" argument.

But let's just say that the inifinite worked on EVERY character except say Captain Falcon, would that call for a ban? you could always just CP C.falcon to fight D3's right?

I don't main someone infinited by this "gayness" (or w/e the major complainers are calling it), heck my main is on the difficult side to CG for D3. Just thought I'd throw a simple whatif question out there.


ps: heck you can ban yoshi's wario "infinite" while your at it too for all I care.

 

[Surri-Sama]

But let's just say that the inifinite worked on EVERY character except say Captain Falcon, would that call for a ban? you could always just CP C.falcon to fight D3's right?

This would obviously be EXTREAM over centralization though, 6...or 2..or 1 chars out of the whole cast is not

 

[Flayl]

Titanium_Dragon, you continue to repeat that the ban is not enforceable for some reason. It is, and it's very simple: Dedede may not grab an opponent in hitstun of his down throw without dashing first.

There is no ambiguity there and the criteria you've been using doesn't apply.

 

[Surri-Sama]

Titanium_Dragon, you continue to repeat that the ban is not enforceable for some reason. It is, and it's very simple: Dedede may not grab an opponent in hitstun of his down throw without dashing first.

There is no ambiguity there and the criteria you've been using doesn't apply.

You're right, it would be enforcable...but then you must answer...why is it banned in the first place!

(dont post your answer, simply search the 250 pages for it and see how we already countered it ;D)

 

[cutter]

If you do want to ban the infinites, can I still small-step chaingrab then?

 

[IrArby]

Why would we ban only ban this infinite and not say Marth's grab release infinite on Ness/Lucas? Starts with a grab and has no escape. Not quite as bad because Marth can't camp Ness/Lucas (not that they can camp Marth really) and he still has the big range advantage. Why not ban it too?

Ahhh maybe its because Ness/Lucas aren't considered exactly "tournament viable" and DK is. Maybe its because alot of DK mains like having the decent matchup with MK the best player in the game. Which begs the question, If your DK is good enough to overcome the skill gap and beat MKs, would those MKs choose a counter character to your DK? The answer is yes, they'd go D3. Counterpicking is part of the game. Do it or others will do it to you which is perfectly fair and competitive.

Thats why we let the loser counterpick. Its never perfectly fair but you can possibly put the matchup in your favor after losing by counterpicking. Assuming your willing to stop being stubborn.

 

[Fletch]

Why would we ban only ban this infinite and not say Marth's grab release infinite on Ness/Lucas? Starts with a grab and has no escape. Not quite as bad because Marth can't camp Ness/Lucas (not that they can camp Marth really) and he still has the big range advantage. Why not ban it too?

Ahhh maybe its because Ness/Lucas aren't considered exactly "tournament viable" and DK is. Maybe its because alot of DK mains like having the decent matchup with MK the best player in the game. Which begs the question, If your DK is good enough to overcome the skill gap and beat MKs, would those MKs choose a counter character to your DK? The answer is yes, they'd go D3. Counterpicking is part of the game. Do it or others will do it to you which is perfectly fair and competitive.

Thats why we let the loser counterpick. Its never perfectly fair but you can possibly put the matchup in your favor after losing by counterpicking. Assuming your willing to stop being stubborn.

I think they found an escape to the Ness/Lucas one, but the Pika/Fox example still stands.

 

[IrArby]

Really? huh Still thats not the only one. Just the first example I thought of. Plus the principle still stands that if your DK is good enough to be tournament viable and beat top tiers, top tiers will counterpick you. Why be stubborn. Forfeiting your chance to counter pick or at least not get counterpicked puts you at a disadvantage of your own making.

 

[Flayl]

Why would we ban only ban this infinite and not say Marth's grab release infinite on Ness/Lucas? Starts with a grab and has no escape. Not quite as bad because Marth can't camp Ness/Lucas (not that they can camp Marth really) and he still has the big range advantage. Why not ban it too?

Ahhh maybe its because Ness/Lucas aren't considered exactly "tournament viable" and DK is. Maybe its because alot of DK mains like having the decent matchup with MK the best player in the game. Which begs the question, If your DK is good enough to overcome the skill gap and beat MKs, would those MKs choose a counter character to your DK? The answer is yes, they'd go D3. Counterpicking is part of the game. Do it or others will do it to you which is perfectly fair and competitive.

Thats why we let the loser counterpick. Its never perfectly fair but you can possibly put the matchup in your favor after losing by counterpicking. Assuming your willing to stop being stubborn.

1, an escape has been found for Ness & Lucas. If there was a method to escape Dedede's infinite, no matter how hard (within reason), this thread would not exist.

2, it's not about counterpicking. Bowser has other bad matchups and it is highly recommended to counterpick those too. Nobody is saying Bowser/DK shouldn't have to counterpick. What we're saying is a technique which makes a matchup impossible (in a competetive environment, nobody cares if you can win against your 4 year old brother) should be banned.

 

[Sonicdahedgie]

It is playing competitively. Whether or not a game which has infinite combos is a good game or a bad game is the real question. Not all games with infinite combos are bad games; for instance, Melee.



Shiek in melee.

I already told you that I didn't play Melee competitively. In fact, the only thing I ever did was play against my brother. I Don't know what you're talking about, or what your point is,

Um, what?

That's HIS criteria for banning. Not ours. In the Metaknight discussion, the criteria for banning something is, "DOES IS HARM THE METAGAME?" PAy attention to what I freaking say, I'm tired of repeating myself.


From his what should be banned chapter



That alone disqualifies this.

Characters that can be infinitely chaingrabbed are only allowed to be grabbed three times if any the comboing grabs do not make Dedede move towards the edge of the stage. If this is the case, the third grab is required to be followed by any other move besides a grab, unless the opponent is sent out of range of a smash attack.

How's that for defining the ban?

There is a difference between being grab infinited and suiciding; namely, your opponent did something. If you get grabbed, it is your own fault you got infinited.

So being infinited is the exact same as a suicide? Read the sentence and you should realize that's what you just said.

You ARE harshly punished, therefore you SHOULD consider not playing DK when your opponent can counterpick DeDeDe.


I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT DK. I HAVE SAID THAT MANY TIMES> Donkey Kong is already a good character, the infinite chain grab CAN, in my opinion be used as a counter to DK because DK is good and has a well established metagame. The other lower-tier characters don;t.


There is no "you shouldn't be punished so badly". There's none of this in a competitive game. What matters, from the player standpoint, is what actually happens. If you make a mistake, it can cost you dearly, or little, depending on whether your opponents' choices allow them to capitalize on it.


I don't think SO MANY should be punished so badly for playing against a single character. It's not a mistake, it's a flaw.



You have no argument for banning. There is no point for a discussion.

Stop saying that, this discussion is far from over.

This is true of other matchups as well, honestly.

But you shouldn't be COMPLETELY screwed, every character should have a chance.



Indeed.

I have said, already that I know counters exist and I'm completely fine with them. I'm not talking about ONE character sucking against ONE character. I'm talking about a BUNCH of characters sucking all against one, and prevents anyone from using them. My argument is NOT FOR THE SAKE OF DONKEY KONG.

I'mma boldie.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

>_>

Oh, okay. Every character should have a chance?

Well, if that's the case, can I politely ask that Pikachu main not to utilize all of the attributes that make my Fox's matchup ridiculously hard? I mean, it isn't fair that he can CG me to 90% and totally outstrip me in priority and camping.

You see how that sounds? It's ridiculous.

This thread is over. The SBR is not going to be banning the infinite any time soon. But if you're so against it, do what the Northeast people do and just ban it yourself.

Smooth Criminal

 

[adumbrodeus]

1, an escape has been found for Ness & Lucas. If there was a method to escape Dedede's infinite, no matter how hard (within reason), this thread would not exist.

2, it's not about counterpicking. Bowser has other bad matchups and it is highly recommended to counterpick those too. Nobody is saying Bowser/DK shouldn't have to counterpick. What we're saying is a technique which makes a matchup impossible (in a competetive environment, nobody cares if you can win against your 4 year old brother) should be banned.

So how come when we thought that Ness and Lucas couldn't escape from Marth's "infinite", we didn't ban that?

The answer? Tier bias.

Nobody cares about them because they're not high tier, but when there's an infinite affecting a high tier character like DK (and you lumped bowser in there just to make it seem less so even though it's a totally different technique, and also Mario Luigi and samus, even though it doesn't effect their match-up), then OMG, we have to ban!!!!

Seriously, this is just blatent tier bias, unwinnable match-ups happen.

 

[1048576]

Also, Charizard can still infinte Ness, I think

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Seriously, this is just blatent tier bias, unwinnable match-ups happen.

See the underlined text.

(God, I'm on a roll with that "underlined" **** as of late. Return of vintage Smooth Criminal ftw.)

Not that I disagreed with your other points, Adumbrodeus, but I feel that THIS particular statement should be noted.

Smooth Criminal

 

[adumbrodeus]

Not that I disagreed with your other points, Adumbrodeus, but I feel that THIS particular statement should be noted.

Smooth Criminal

Why?

I don't see a 5,336 post thread about banning Marth's grab release infinite on Ness/Lucas.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Why?

I don't see a 5,336 post thread about banning Marth's grab release infinite on Ness/Lucas.

No, no. Un-winnable match-ups are just...a given when it comes to competitive gaming, particularly fighting games. I was just hoping that somebody could expand on that point.

(I would, but I'm a little short on time. Work johns.)

Smooth Criminal

 

[adumbrodeus]

No, no. Un-winnable match-ups are just...a given when it comes to competitive gaming, particularly fighting games. I was just hoping that somebody could expand on that point.

(I would, but I'm a little short on time. Work johns.)

Smooth Criminal

Oh, totally misread.

Haven't been getting much sleep lately, sorry.

 

[LinkNavi]

if your seriously worried about his chain grab , then why arent you worried ice climbers grab, i have no problem with niether of 'em , i main ice climbers actually, but banning things like that would just make the game less fun , especially to the people who play with DDD, (note) if you afraid of the chain grab , then dont play against him.....

 

[cutter]

This thread is over. The SBR is not going to be banning the infinite any time soon. But if you're so against it, do what the Northeast people do and just ban it yourself.

Smooth Criminal

You can also be like the AN and ban grab releases and Ice Climbers' infinites as well. lol

 

[da K.I.D.]

lol@linknavi
dont play against D3...

so....

dont go to tournaments.

also marths infinite on ness/lucas is not an infinite.

 

[Flayl]

It's not the chain grab, it's the infinite.

So how come when we thought that Ness and Lucas couldn't escape from Marth's "infinite", we didn't ban that?

The answer? Tier bias.

Nobody cares about them because they're not high tier, but when there's an infinite affecting a high tier character like DK (and you lumped bowser in there just to make it seem less so even though it's a totally different technique, and also Mario Luigi and samus, even though it doesn't effect their match-up), then OMG, we have to ban!!!!

Seriously, this is just blatent tier bias, unwinnable match-ups happen.

I don't know what you're going on about but if there was no way of escaping Marth's infinite I would have supported the Earthbounders if they made an appeal to the community. I didn't see one, so I didn't voice my opinion on it. I'm obviously biased for my main. I also play plenty of R.O.B., so I could just drop Bowser entirely, but I find it a lot more intelligent to actually get rid of this horribly flawed technique.

In fact I don't know why you think I'm just caring about this because of Donkey Kong, that's quite silly. But I would support the DK players had they made an appeal.

Atlantic North also banned the Earthbound infinites when they became known.

 

[ShadowLink84]

I don't know what you're going on about but if there was no way of escaping Marth's infinite I would have supported the Earthbounders if they made an appeal to the community.

A number of them did before the escape was found and even with the escape you'll eat and Fsmash,Ftilt, etc etc etc they gt perfectly setup for death and Marth's dash grab is still possible and can still result in a kill just like the infinite does.
Ban?

I didn't see one, so I didn't voice my opinion on it. I'm obviously biased for my main. I also play plenty of R.O.B., so I could just drop Bowser entirely, but I find it a lot more intelligent to actually get rid of this horribly flawed technique.

Why?
Why is it okay to remove the technique?
What objective reasoning do you have?

Atlantic North also banned the Earthbound infinites when they became known.

The Atlantic North is ban happy and the only region that has banned infinites.
They have upheld the bans in spite of evidence given to them time and time again.

 

[Flayl]

A number of them did before the escape was found and even with the escape you'll eat and Fsmash,Ftilt, etc etc etc they gt perfectly setup for death and Marth's dash grab is still possible and can still result in a kill just like the infinite does.
Ban?

This was hard to read, but you should know Bowser has chain-grabs and grab-release setups too. There's a big differnece between those and an infinite.

Why?
Why is it okay to remove the technique?
What objective reasoning do you have?

Uh, I've already stated why several times. Also it's not possible to provide objective reasoning, don't ask for something you can't provide either.

The Atlantic North is ban happy and the only region that has banned infinites.

Texas.

They have upheld the bans in spite of evidence given to them time and time again.

Evidence as in what's done in other fighting games? Because they only evidence they found so far is that Brawl is a better game without the infinite.

 

[adumbrodeus]

also marths infinite on ness/lucas is not an infinite.

We know that NOW, for a long time it was thought to be an infinite.

It's not the chain grab, it's the infinite.

I don't know what you're going on about but if there was no way of escaping Marth's infinite I would have supported the Earthbounders if they made an appeal to the community. I didn't see one, so I didn't voice my opinion on it. I'm obviously biased for my main. I also play plenty of R.O.B., so I could just drop Bowser entirely, but I find it a lot more intelligent to actually get rid of this horribly flawed technique.

In fact I don't know why you think I'm just caring about this because of Donkey Kong, that's quite silly. But I would support the DK players had they made an appeal.

Atlantic North also banned the Earthbound infinites when they became known.

It was thought to be an infinite for a while, and during that time, there was no wide-scale appeal within the community for a ban. Sure, there are INDIVIDUALS who do and have supported the ban, but it was never anywhere near as big of an issue as this is.

Why? Because of tier bias.


As for Atlantic North, AN TOs ban everything and their mother. Again, remember Inui's ban of "lame tactics" that I pointed to earlier in the the thread? Yeah, Atlantic North is my anti-ban for this for the opposite reason that it's AlphaZealot's for MK, it shows what the natural conclusion of such a ban-happy attitude is.

...

And I'm stuck in it.

 

[adumbrodeus]

also marths infinite on ness/lucas is not an infinite.

We know that NOW, for a long time it was thought to be an infinite.

It's not the chain grab, it's the infinite.

I don't know what you're going on about but if there was no way of escaping Marth's infinite I would have supported the Earthbounders if they made an appeal to the community. I didn't see one, so I didn't voice my opinion on it. I'm obviously biased for my main. I also play plenty of R.O.B., so I could just drop Bowser entirely, but I find it a lot more intelligent to actually get rid of this horribly flawed technique.

In fact I don't know why you think I'm just caring about this because of Donkey Kong, that's quite silly. But I would support the DK players had they made an appeal.

Atlantic North also banned the Earthbound infinites when they became known.

It was thought to be an infinite for a while, and during that time, there was no wide-scale appeal within the community for a ban. Sure, there are INDIVIDUALS who do and have supported the ban, but it was never anywhere near as big of an issue as this is.

Why? Because of tier bias.


As for Atlantic North, AN TOs ban everything and their mother. Again, remember Inui's ban of "lame tactics" that I pointed to earlier in the the thread? Yeah, Atlantic North is my anti-ban for this for the opposite reason that it's AlphaZealot's for MK, it shows what the natural conclusion of such a ban-happy attitude is.

...

And I'm stuck in it.

 

[Flayl]

It wasn't made as big of an issue because it was a lesser number of characters, the Earthbound players didn't get enough people to care, because they weren't vocal enough.

People won't care if it doesn't affect them, or worse, oppose the ban strictly for the sake of not banning.

 

[cutter]

@ adumbrodeus: It's also the reason why you don't see Ice Climbers place well in AN. They pre-emptively killed the character by banning the infinites.

 

[ShadowLink84]

This was hard to read, but you should know Bowser has chain-grabs and grab-release setups too. There's a big differnece between those and an infinite.

So what?
Again what is the difference?
Just because its an infinite?
Thats hardly a reason at all because the end result is the same.
YOU DIE.

Uh, I've already stated why several times. Also it's not possible to provide objective reasoning, don't ask for something you can't provide either.

I can do so with numbers.

Simple.
For one we will look at the impact of the infinite.
5 characters out of 37 are affected by the infinite.
We have around 780 matchups.

If we go based on the number of characters affected you have roughly 13.5% of the cast affected.

if we go based on the number of matchups you get less that 1% (aroun .003%.

Based on these numbers we can reach the conclusion that the infinites do not affect the metagame significantly because of ho incredibly low the numbers are.

This is as objective as you can get which means you wouldn't be capable of banning the infinite unless you lowered the bar for what is worthy of a ban,
Texas.

Evidence as in what's done in other fighting games? Because they only evidence they found so far is that Brawl is a better game without the infinite.

What proof do you have that brawl is a better game without the evidence other than your own opinion?
What proof do you have that Brawl is even affected anyway?
Why has no one answered those questions on the pro ban side?

It wasn't made as big of an issue because it was a lesser number of characters, the Earthbound players didn't get enough people to care, because they weren't vocal enough.

They made a topic I believe but look the hint and realized it wasn't a big issue.

People won't care if it doesn't affect them, or worse, oppose the ban strictly for the sake of not banning.

What kind of nonsensical jabber is this.

"people don't care because it doesn't affect them."
So what?
I mained Link in melee, and more often than not people would simply CP Sheik and I had to do what anyone else maining the bad 5 had o do and SWITCH CHARACTERS.
it annoyed me but that didn't mean it was ban worthy.
yeah it sucks when it happens but it sucking is far from a good reason to ban it.

Oh and Texas is a region?

Oh and I am stuck in NY.
So I am in a banhappy region within a state that cannot report their results properly!
AAAAAARGH!

 

[N.O.T.A.-SrsC@]

Getting more info about how you guys feel on things always helps with these kinds of issues. I'm interested to see what the community feels about this.

Dedede can currently infinite CG 6 characters in the game: Bowser, DK, Samus, Mario, Luigi, and himself (off the edge). Out of those characters, the one who likely suffers the worst is DK, and the region with one of the best DK players out there, Bum, has banned D3's infinite since nearly the beginning of the game, but I don't believe there are any other regions out there that have consistently banned the infinite.

Do you believe that D3's standing infinite chaingrab should be banned?

The keywords here are standing and infinite, so I vote yes, because I honestly think it to be unfair, even as a d3 player, to just waste someones time by infiniting them out of a stock.

 

[salaboB]

Simple.
For one we will look at the impact of the infinite.
5 characters out of 37 are affected by the infinite.
We have around 780 matchups.

If we go based on the number of characters affected you have roughly 13.5% of the cast affected.

if we go based on the number of matchups you get less that 1% (aroun .003%.

Based on these numbers we can reach the conclusion that the infinites do not affect the metagame significantly because of ho incredibly low the numbers are.

This is as objective as you can get which means you wouldn't be capable of banning the infinite unless you lowered the bar for what is worthy of a ban,
Texas.

Just to point out, the numbers don't tell the whole story. If DDD infinited not just DK and some lowish tiered characters but instead had an infinite on DK, MK, Snake, Falco, Olimar, and himself, your numbers would look the same but the impact on the metagame would be huge.

 

[cutter]

The keywords here are standing and infinite, so I vote yes, because I honestly think it to be unfair, even as a d3 player, to just waste someones time by infiniting them out of a stock.

"unfair" is a completely awful reasoning to ban something.

I guess you're another D3 main that is handcuffed by his own morals thinking the infinite is "unfair".

 

[Flayl]

So what?
Again what is the difference?
Just because its an infinite?
Thats hardly a reason at all because the end result is the same.
YOU DIE.

I'm going to ignore this becuase you're going off on a tangent that is in no way related to the subject at hand. You're making it sound like I want to ban combos.

I can do so with numbers.

Simple.
For one we will look at the impact of the infinite.
5 characters out of 37 are affected by the infinite.
We have around 780 matchups.

If we go based on the number of characters affected you have roughly 13.5% of the cast affected.

if we go based on the number of matchups you get less that 1% (aroun .003%.

Based on these numbers we can reach the conclusion that the infinites do not affect the metagame significantly because of ho incredibly low the numbers are.

This is as objective as you can get which means you wouldn't be capable of banning the infinite unless you lowered the bar for what is worthy of a ban,

This reasoning is entirely subective, mainly because you set an arbitrary line for when a technique is worth a ban. 6 (not 5) is not enough to ban. Is 7? 8? 9? Compared to yours, my reasoning is more objective: 1 is too much. No arbitrary lines, no ambiguity.

What proof do you have that brawl is a better game without the evidence other than your own opinion?

Dedede doesn't become less viable and more characters are viable, that's why AN can state the game is better. Subjective, yes, but it's the evidnece they have, as opposed to you, who have yet to provide evidence on why Brawl is in any way better with the infinite.

What proof do you have that Brawl is even affected anyway?

... What? Is this a serious question?

Why has no one answered those questions on the pro ban side?

They have, you chose to ignore them. I am nowhere near the first person to make my points.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Just to point out, the numbers don't tell the whole story. If DDD infinited not just DK and some lowish tiered characters but instead had an infinite on DK, MK, Snake, Falco, Olimar, and himself, your numbers would look the same but the impact on the metagame would be huge.

Um no. Not really.

For one the main reason people make a stink about those characters is because DDD can force them into a position for the infinite.
With those characters DDD cannot do such a thing because they can space much better (in general).
Look at Ganondorf's infinite on Wario.

if we ignored that we would also realize the fact that you can counter pick which removes the issue entirely.
Let alone that one nasty matchup does not destroy a characters viability!
So the effect wouldn't be large either because those characters are still extremely viable outside the matchup.

I'm going to ignore this becuase you're going off on a tangent that is in no way related to the subject at hand. You're making it sound like I want to ban combos.

you missed the point.
I am asking you why it is okay to ban an infinite but not okay to ban grab releases that will result in death for the other characters everytime they are landed.

Why is it okay to ban one thing but not the other when they both cause the same result

This reasoning is entirely subective, mainly because you set an arbitrary line for when a technique is worth a ban. 6 (not 5) is not enough to ban. Is 7? 8? 9? Compared to yours, my reasoning is more objective: 1 is too much. No arbitrary lines, no ambiguity.

You just strawmanned my argument.
I have not set a line period.
If you look at the percentages you notice that the numbers are far from significant.
if we consider anything above 50% to be he majority, then looka t the number of characters affected, then you realize that the impact is very, very small.

When you get to matchups its much smaller.

Dedede doesn't become less viable and more characters are viable, that's why AN can state the game is better. Subjective, yes, but it's the evidnece they have, as opposed to you, who have yet to provide evidence on why Brawl is in any way better with the infinite.

You must be joking.
Viability of a character is measured in accordance to how they do OVERALL.
one very ****ty matchup becoming a less ****ty matchup does NOT improve viability.
at all.

... What? Is this a serious question?

yes.
How is brawl's metagame affected by banning the infinites.
how does banning the infinite improve the viability of those characters?
Does this improve their capabilities against other characters?

They have, you chose to ignore them. I am nowhere near the first person to make my points.

Ignored them?
When?
I haven't been here since the 23rd so if they have been posted, I will be more than happy if you were to show them to me.

 

[adumbrodeus]

It wasn't made as big of an issue because it was a lesser number of characters, the Earthbound players didn't get enough people to care, because they weren't vocal enough.

People won't care if it doesn't affect them, or worse, oppose the ban strictly for the sake of not banning.

How so?

THE INFINITE effects one character in a manner that actually hurts the Match-up, DK.


It's useless (match-up wise) against Luigi, Mario, and Samus because of the insane percent required to make it usable.


Bowser doesn't get infinited, period.



So, the infinite only leaves 1 character with a horrible noob-proof match-up.


On the other hand, Marth's "infinite" created 2 noob-proof match-ups. If anything it was MORE bannable.


Which leaves me with the inevitable conclusion that again, the majority didn't care because of tier bias.

 

[Flayl]

How so?
THE INFINITE effects one character in a manner that actually hurts the Match-up, DK.
It's useless (match-up wise) against Luigi, Mario, and Samus because of the insane percent required to make it usable.
Bowser doesn't get infinited, period.
So, the infinite only leaves 1 character with a horrible noob-proof match-up.
On the other hand, Marth's "infinite" created 2 noob-proof match-ups. If anything it was MORE bannable.
Which leaves me with the inevitable conclusion that again, the majority didn't care because of tier bias.

This debate started with the infinite occuring to 6 characters.

 

[ShadowLink84]

i think its because he has Coconut guns, that fire in bursts , if they shoot ya, its gonna hurt! been improved since melee?

 

[salaboB]

Um no. Not really.

For one the main reason people make a stink about those characters is because DDD can force them into a position for the infinite.
With those characters DDD cannot do such a thing because they can space much better (in general).
Look at Ganondorf's infinite on Wario.

if we ignored that we would also realize the fact that you can counter pick which removes the issue entirely.
Let alone that one nasty matchup does not destroy a characters viability!
So the effect wouldn't be large either because those characters are still extremely viable outside the matchup.\

You seriously believe that a high tier character with DDD's grab range having a standing infinite to 300% from one grab (That's what he has on DK) on all the other high/tops wouldn't seriously impact the metagame?

Really?

I'm pretty sure it would change how the entire competitive scene looked.

 

[da K.I.D.]

theres also wolf who he can CG to the edge and than infinite him over said edge.

 

[Flayl]

You just strawmanned my argument.
I have not set a line period.
If you look at the percentages you notice that the numbers are far from significant.
if we consider anything above 50% to be he majority, then looka t the number of characters affected, then you realize that the impact is very, very small.

Tell me when you have learned the irony of this quote.

You must be joking.
Viability of a character is measured in accordance to how they do OVERALL.
one very ****ty matchup becoming a less ****ty matchup does NOT improve viability.
at all.

This just proves you really don't know the matchups, at all.

I haven't been here since the 23rd so if they have been posted, I will be more than happy if you were to show them to me.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=208288 Here they are.

 

[ShadowLink84]

You seriously believe that a high tier character having a standing infinite to 300% from one grab (That's what he has on DK) on all the other high/tops wouldn't seriously impact the metagame?

Really?

I'm pretty sure it would change how the entire competitive scene looked.

No because again someone can simply CP and avoid the issue entirely.
One **** matchup doesn't destroy the viability of a character.
For example in MvC2, everyone below Sentinel, Storm, Cable and Magneto get absolutely destroyed by those 4.
The next best three (5 through 7) which are Cyclops, Strider and some other dude, ddestroy everyone else below them.

In spite of Cyclops getting destroyed by those 4 characters (all of which have really nasty infinites too) he is still a high tier character who places well.
Considering you can switch characters this makes it all the more easier to avoid nasty matchups and retain character viability.

Tell me when you have learned the irony of this quote.

Really now?
Can you explain in what way you feel I established a line?
an you show that the numbers I used are completely subjective?
That anything over 50% would not be equal to a majority?

This just proves you really don't know the matchups, at all.

Witless one liners do nothing to prove me wrong.
Prove that DDD's infinite makes Dk's viability equivalent to that of a bottom tier character.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=208288 Here they are.

-_-;
Perhaps I wasn't very specific.
Which posts?